Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the Bar Council of India)
M.R. Shah, B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.
K. Anjinappa - Appellant
Versus
K.C. Krishna Reddy and Anr. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7478 of 2019
Decided On : 17-12-2021
Advocates Act, 1961 – Sections 35, 36 and 36B – Professional misconduct by Advocate – Disposal of a complaint received by State Bar Council under Section 35 within a period of one year from date of receipt of such complaint is mandatory and concerned State Bar Council(s) have to dispose of such complaints as expeditiously and in each case proceeding shall have to be concluded within a period of one year – Only in an exceptional case, by giving valid reasons to be recorded as to why complaint could not be disposed of within a period of one year, such complaints are required to be transferred to Bar Council of India – Transfer of complaint(s) received under Section 35 of Advocates Act from State Bar Council to Bar Council of India is an exception – It is duty of Bar Council of India/State Bar council to improve its functioning on disciplinary side – Under Advocates Act, duty is cast upon Bar Council of India/State Bar Councils to safeguard integrity of legal profession – It is duty of Bar Council of India/respective State Bar Councils to ensure nobility of legal system at all costs – By not disposing of complaint within stipulated time provided under the Act would tantamount to failure on their part to perform duty cast under Advocates Act – Respective State Bar Councils directed to decide and dispose of complaint(s) received by it under Section 35 expeditiously and to conclude the same within a period of one year from date of receipt of the complaint as mandated under Section 36B of Advocates Act. (Paras 9, 9.1, 10, 21.1, 13 and 14)
Facts of the case:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India dated 12.12.2015 by which the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India has dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant against his Advocate, the appellant-original complainant No.1 has preferred the present appeal under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
Findings of Court:
Bar Council of India may issue suitable directions to the State Bar Council to enlist a panel of Inquiry Officers for the purpose of conducting the inquiry on behalf of the Bar Council of India in the respective States itself and on conclusion of the said inquiry to transmit the inquiry report to the Bar Council of India for enabling it to take it further action in the matter.
Result : Appeal disposed of
The legal document emphasizes the importance of timely disposal of complaints against advocates by the Bar Council of India and State Bar Councils. It establishes that under the Advocates Act, the duty to dispose of complaints received under Section 35 within one year is mandatory. Failure to do so constitutes a breach of statutory obligation, which can lead to the transfer of complaints to the Bar Council of India if the delay is unjustified and reasons are not properly recorded (!) [p_9.1] (!) [p_21.1].
The document highlights that the transfer of complaints to the Bar Council of India is an exception, applicable only when valid reasons are recorded for the delay beyond one year. The primary responsibility remains with the respective State Bar Councils to conclude proceedings within the prescribed timeframe (!) (!) (!) (!) .
It underscores that delays, especially those caused by deliberate inaction or neglect, undermine the integrity and nobility of the legal profession. The legal system relies heavily on the trust and confidence of society in advocates, which can be eroded by such delays (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Furthermore, the document advocates for proactive measures, such as appointing experienced Inquiry Officers and establishing mechanisms for expeditious disposal of complaints. It stresses that the disciplinary authorities must ensure that proceedings are concluded within the statutory period to maintain the dignity of the profession and uphold public confidence (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Overall, the legal principles outlined reinforce that the disciplinary process is a vital aspect of maintaining the integrity of the legal profession, and non-compliance with prescribed timelines is viewed as a serious lapse that can compromise the nobility and trustworthiness of advocates and the judiciary system as a whole.
JUDGMENT :
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India dated 12.12.2015 by which the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India has dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant against his Advocate, the appellant-original complainant No.1 has preferred the present appeal under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
2. The appellant herein filed the Complaint Case No.20 of 2013 against his Advocate on the ground of professional misconduct. The said complaint was filed initially before the Bar Council of State of Andhra Pradesh. Though under the Advocates Act, the State Bar Council was duty bound to dispose of the complaint received by it under Section 35 expeditiously and in each case the proceedings had to be concluded within a period of one year from the date of receipt of complaint, the State Bar Council did not dispose of the said complaint. Therefore, the said complaint came to be transferred to the Bar Council of India as per Section 36B of the Advocates Act. Now by the impugned order, the complaint has been dismissed on the ground that the complaint was filed by two complainants, namely, Shri K. Anjinappa (the appellant herein) and one Shri S. Lakshmi Naryana (complainant No.2), however, the said complaint was not signed by complainant No.2 – Shri S. Lakshmi Narayana; that the matter is pending since 2013 to 2015. Having observed so, the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India dismissed the complaint, without further entering into the allegations made in the complaint, by observing that in view of the above, the complaint is not at all maintainable.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India, the appellant original complainant No.1 has preferred the present appeal.
4. Considering the fact that the complaint filed by the appellant herein – original complainant No.1 remained pending with the Bar Council of State of Andhra Pradesh for more than one year and therefore the same was transferred to the Bar Council of India under Section 36B of the Advocates Act, by order dated 03.12.2021, this Court passed the following:-
In many cases the complaints are made before the concerned State Bar Council(s), however, for one reason or another and may be that the complaint is against an Advocate, who is a member of the concerned Bar Association/Bar Council, the complaints are not decided and disposed of within a period of one year and ultimately they are required to be transferred to the Bar Council of India.
We, therefore, call upon and direct the Bar Council of India to place on record the particulars that in how many cases during the last five years the complaints are transferred from the concerned State Bar Council(s) to the Bar Council of India and in how many cases the transferred complaints/cases are decided and disposed of.
Put up on 13.12.2021.”
5. In compliance of the order dated 03.12.2021, an affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Bar Council of India. In the affidavit, it is stated that in last five years, 1,273 complaints filed under Section 35 of the Advocates Act have been transferred to the Bar Council of India as the concerned State Bar Council(s) did not dispose of the complaint(s) under Section 35 of the Advocates Act within one year. The statement is reproduced herein below:-
| Sr. | State | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | Total | Dispose |
Professional misconduct by Advocate – Disposal of a complaint received by State Bar Council under Section 35 within a period of one year from date of receipt of such complaint is mandatory.
The duty of Bar Councils to uphold professional conduct and etiquette, and the requirement for efficient and expeditious disposal of complaints under the Advocates Act.
The Bar Council can initiate disciplinary action based on a reasonable belief of wrongdoing or a formal complaint without infringing on an advocate's rights until a final order is made.
The Bar Council can initiate suo motu disciplinary proceedings against advocates for misconduct, and the procedural requirements under Section 35 of the Advocates Act are not overly restrictive.
The disciplinary committee's action timeline can be extended to exclude periods during which it is judicially prohibited from considering a complaint.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of statutory immunity under Section 48 of the Advocates Act and the doctrine of merger, which resulted in the plaintiff's lack of c....
Only parties with a direct legal relationship with an advocate can file complaints of professional misconduct against them under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
